Jim Thorpe Is Sued By Builder

A Luzerne County contractor filed a lawsuit this week in Carbon County Court, seeking nearly $43,000 from Jim Thorpe for cost overruns the former borough manager authorized on a 1992 project.

Contractors Group Inc. is seeking payment for work not included in the original contract to replace an 8-inch water line in Pleasant Hill. CGI bid $55,838 on the job, which ended up costing nearly $100,000.

Borough officials said former Jim Thorpe Manager George Probst gave the company permission to make the changes, but he did not have authority from council to order or approve changes. His job was merely to oversee the work to ensure it was done to specifications.

The project was funded with Community Development Block Grant money through the state Department of Community Affairs. The borough receives grant money each year for projects, and the Carbon County Department of Planning and Development administers the grant for 15 percent of the project's cost.

In November 1993, CGI sued Carbon County for the cost overruns.

"This is virtually the same suit," CGI attorney Keith A. Hunter said yesterday. "In the first one we were claiming we entered into a contract with the county."

Hunter said he later recognized Jim Thorpe also was liable for the costs CGI incurred. He said the court denied his request to name Jim Thorpe in the original suit and, therefor, he filed a separate suit against Jim Thorpe on Monday.

Stephen Simchak of the county's planning and development office said he did not know of the cost overruns until the job was finished.

On other projects, Simchak said an engineer reviews changes the contractor suggests and then checks with his office to make sure funding is available. He said Probst never checked with his office or put the changes in writing.

"All I know is he talked the borough into letting him run the job instead of an engineer," Simchak said. "It's not smart, but everyone thought he was qualified. All I know is it turned out to be a mess."

According to the suit, CGI was repeatedly advised that there was not enough time to obtain written approval for the extra work, but they would be paid.

"The extra work performed by CGI to the benefit of the defendant was done in a good and workmanlike manner and performed to the specifications agreed to orally between the parties," the suit said.

Probst developed the designs and bid specifications, which the suit alleges contributed to the overruns. Probst was the borough's manager for one year, and in November 1992 he opted not to sign another one-year contract because of disputes with council members.

According to the lawsuit, the specifications did not indicate the new water line had to be tied into the lines on Silk and 3rd streets. This resulted in additional costs of $5,623. The specifications also did not call for restoring and paving the street, which cost $11,028.

There were additional costs incurred to correctly locate water services, $4,875; to install hydrant extensions, $1,397; and to widen the trench because of large boulders, $13,563.

CGI also alleges it incurred costs of $6,457 when council shut down the job to contemplate pipe installation procedures.

Simchak said CGI's bid was 50 percent lower than other bids received. Following its usual practice, council awarded the contract to the lowest bidder.

"Maybe the other bidders weren't thinking about doing it the proper way according to state specifications," Simchak said. "In the end, the job still came out a little cheaper than the other bids."